The U.S. Supreme Court case Homer Ramsdell Transportation Company v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique in 1900 revolved around a dispute between two shipping companies over the loss of cargo during transport. The French company, La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, had contracted with the American company, Homer Ramsdell Transportation Company, to deliver goods from New York to Havre. However, some of the cargo was lost when it fell into the Hudson River while being transferred from one vessel to another at night without proper lighting or safety measures in place. La Compagnie sued for damages and won in lower courts on grounds that Homer Ramsdell had been negligent by not providing adequate light and safety precautions during transfer operations at night time which led to loss of cargo. However, upon appeal by Homer Ramsdell Transportation Co., the U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that there was no negligence as both parties were aware about conditions under which transfer operation would take place including lack of sufficient lighting at nighttime and yet agreed upon same terms for contract execution.

In the dissenting opinion for Homer Ramsdell Transportation Company v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique failed to properly consider important aspects of maritime law and precedent. The dissent emphasized that under international maritime law, liability should be determined based on fault rather than simply which vessel struck another. It was pointed out that both vessels were moving at the time of collision and therefore shared responsibility for avoiding each other. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “in extremis” doctrine as applied in this case; arguing instead that Ramsdell had taken sufficient evasive action given their circumstances while La Compagnie did not take any despite having more opportunity to do so.